How Jagmeet Singh can (still) become Prime Minister, maybe

I haven't written on this blog for over 2 years. My last post, written in September 2017, was titled, How Jagmeet Singh can become Prime Minister.

And as we can see today, Jagmeet is nowhere close to that happening. Becoming Prime Minister, however, should remain his goal and it's still not entirely outside the realm of possibility. The Liberal Party ended the 2011 election with 34 seats but ended the next election with 184, a stunning turnaround, similar to the type of turnaround Jagmeet would need to bring his party into contention in time for the next election or even the election after that.

I'm not a political strategist and I've never even been involved in political circles so you can take what I say with a grain of salt. I do, however, follow the news closely. And I am certainly passionate about seeing Jagmeet do well. So even with my lack of experience and expertise, I still feel compelled to share my thoughts on how I think Jagmeet can bounce back from this result. First off, I wanted to focus on some positives. Jagmeet did a great job during the campaign period. He had great energy every single day. His social media presence was very strong. His debate performances were great. His overall "air campaign" was amazing. However, there were many areas in which I think Jagmeet can improve on for next time especially when it comes to preparation. Jagmeet needs to have that same energy and purpose that he showed in the last 2 months but more consistently over the next (potentially) 4 years in order to maximize his party's results in the next election.

So here are some thoughts on how I think Jagmeet can do better next time, in no particular order:

1) Jagmeet needs to target those voters that actually show up: Several polls showed the NDP leading among 18-34 year olds and those were the voters that propelled Jagmeet's rise in the polls during the second half of the campaign. But as is typically the case, younger voters do not show up in the same numbers as older voters. Typically, it's seniors that show up the most. What did Jagmeet offer to seniors? Not enough. While Jagmeet was often in first place with younger voters, he was way back among older voters. There was a question in the French debate asking about policies for seniors. Jagmeet mentioned some of his main campaign promises such as pharmacare (a great policy and especially beneficial to seniors that lack drug coverage) but nothing overly specific to seniors. It's unfortunate because Jagmeet actually had a sound seniors policy from his leadership campaign about boosting seniors benefits to ensure that no senior in Canada lives in poverty. It was essentially a basic income for seniors. It didn't make it into the NDP's election platform but it should have. It would have appealed to seniors or those on the verge of retirement. It would have appealed to the children of seniors who worry about whether their parents will have enough resources to make ends meet. It would have also appealed to those Canadians interested in seeing a basic income program being implemented for at least Canada's seniors, with maybe the hope that this basic income could be expanded in later years to all working age Canadians (something that might be necessary in the future). Combined with a universal pharmacare program, this pitch to seniors would have been compelling and yet I never heard Jagmeet make this specific pitch to seniors, the most reliable voting bloc in Canada. The youth vote is important but it's only one demographic among several and it can't be overly focused on at the expense of older voters. Liberals and Conservatives micro-target specific constituencies with a certain degree of efficiency, especially those voters that have a higher propensity to show up. The NDP has to be similarly effective in the types of voters that they target.

2) Appealing to moderates: Many people I know refused to vote for Jagmeet because they found his policies to be too far left. The thing is, Jagmeet has to be strongly left-wing. In 2015, the Liberals were seen to be outflanking the NDP on the left wing of Canadian politics and since then Justin Trudeau has tried to take up a lot of the oxygen on the left side of the spectrum. Jagmeet should continue espousing new social programs (pharmacare, dentalcare, childcare) and should also continue to espouse higher taxes on the rich to pay for those new social programs. However, Jagmeet should seek to make some strategic shifts in other policy areas. Free trade is one of those areas. Jagmeet had the gall to criticize Trump's tariffs on steel and aluminum and urge Trudeau to fight them while maintaining his overall anti-free trade stance. Free trade is good for Canada, empirically speaking and yet Jagmeet never seems willing to speak in favour of a single trade liberalization agreement in existence because he's seemingly afraid it would offend dated NDP dogma. In summary, Jagmeet needs to maintain his overall strongly left stance while also having something to offer moderates who want something to hang their hats on especially something that demonstrates moderation on the economy. I feel that many moderates wanted to vote for Jagmeet this time around but needed an excuse to do so which wasn't really on offer. Which brings me to my next point...

3) Asserting his leadership in shaping the NDP: He's the leader but it doesn't always feel that way. Jagmeet was the only leader yesterday who discussed consulting with his caucus on how to move forward in the next Parliament. Leadership by committee (caucus) is ineffective leadership. Leadership is exercised by an individual, namely the duly elected leader of the party. The leader charts the direction of the party. Consulting with and maintaining positive relationships with caucus members is important but being overly deferential to them is a bad idea, in our system of politics. It often feels like Jagmeet fears his caucus, perhaps because he's a minority and suffers from impostor syndrome as minorities and women in power sometimes do. Fear the caucus and they will cause you problems. Lead and they will get in line. When it comes to policy, Jagmeet fights for typical NDP orthodoxy, never once seeming to have the inkling to chart the NDP into even a slightly different direction than what's come in the past. Policy wise, what is Jagmeet's stamp on the NDP? A basic income plan? No, he abandoned his basic income plan for seniors. Pharmacare, dentalcare and childcare? No, they've been in NDP platforms before as well. Moderation on trade or other issues? No hint of it. Jagmeet needs to make the NDP his party. This doesn't necessitate a huge break from the NDP's past but it does require some kind of evolution that would make the NDP more appealing to more Canadians (again, without sacrificing the overall strongly left stance which is the party's hallmark).

4) Stronger outreach to non-white Canadians. Visible minorities, along with Indigenous Canadians, make up around a quarter of voters and that number will continue to increase. As Canada's first non-white leader, Jagmeet has a unique opportunity to connect with these voters. If Jagmeet got majority government type numbers (40%) specifically with this group, that would gain him 10% of the vote, before even touching any white voters. I haven't looked at any polling data by race or ethnicity but it doesn't feel like Jagmeet performed as strongly as he needed to among non-white voters. I'd be surprised if he did that much better if at all among non-whites as he did with white voters. Jason Kenney, the current Premier of Alberta, was responsible for ethnic outreach for the Conservatives during the Harper years. He was pretty good at it. He attended thousands of events in ethnic communities, building important ties for the Conservatives that helped deliver them their majority government victory in 2011. Who's doing this for Jagmeet Singh? The leader cannot have the specific task of outreach in all of these communities. The leader needs to deputize someone to carry out and supervise this outreach and deputize many others to do outreach exclusively in specific communities, eg among Filipinos, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, Chinese, Koreans, Black Canadians and the list goes on. The NDP, as a social justice based party, is uniquely positioned to listen to all of these communities, especially their experiences with discrimination as well as their concerns about oppression and state violence in some of their native countries. On a policy perspective, it was also disappointing not to see anything of substance from the NDP on immigration. A policy on making it easier to sponsor parents or even siblings for permanent residence would have been very appealing in many immigrant communities. It is something that should be considered for next time. It will take lots of outreach but as a non-white leader, there's no reason Jagmeet can't win the non-white vote in the next election which would likely propel him to over 20% of the national popular vote (assuming half of his vote is coming from non-whites (10/25%) and half from whites (10+/75%)).

5) Better and Faster Candidate Recruitment: This is something Jagmeet's team probably already knows but it didn't feel like the NDP's slate of candidates this election was the best it could possibly be. I want to contrast this with Justin Trudeau's efforts at candidate recruitment in 2015. They were in a distant third place and yet Trudeau was able to recruit some exceptional candidates that very much contributed to their meteoric rise that year. I understand that the terrorism kerfuffle (collectively racist act by the Canadian media) at the beginning of Jagmeet's leadership followed by Jagmeet's marriage and then his by-election campaign might have made it hard to focus totally on preparations for the campaign including candidate recruitment. But this time, there's no excuses. There must be a very strong field of candidates in the next election especially in the 40-50 or so seats that the NDP does not currently hold in which it has a history of electing candidates in the past. Those ridings should be specifically identified. There's about 8 of them in BC, 1 of them in Alberta, 3-4 of them in Saskatchewan, 1-2 of them in Manitoba, about 25 in Ontario and maybe another 3-4 in Atlantic Canada. While the NDP won around 60 seats in Quebec in 2011, I would focus on just 5-10 ridings for the next election where a left-wing option would be especially appealing. Finding 40-50 terrific candidates is very doable. It requires persistence and it requires convincing people to run who would otherwise not be inclined to do so. Many of these candidates will need to be personally convinced by Jagmeet sometimes over multiple meetings. Candidate recruitment should start sooner rather than later, especially in a minority parliament. The NDP is always the latest in nominating candidates as compared to the Liberals and Conservatives. This gives NDP candidates less time for campaigning and building important links in the community. The NDP should begin the process of targeting strong candidates in every riding in which they got at least 20% of the vote this election and should also target having active and functioning EDAs (electoral district associations) in more ridings. The NDP needs to better build its grassroots organization to identify voters and create the conditions for winning a growing number of seats.

6) Fundraising: As has been well-documented by the media, the NDP has been lagging considerably in fundraising for the past 4 years. This election, while not meeting expectations in terms of popular vote and seat count, still allowed many thousands of Canadians to become passionate about Jagmeet Singh. This passion needs to be channeled into fundraising. The NDP needs to find a way to double their fundraising from $5M a year to $10M a year. The Sikh community can be utilized for fundraising, even members of the community who otherwise vote Liberal come election time. Small dollar donors need to be better channeled by the NDP on social media into donating. I see Democratic Candidates in the US regularly ask for donations on Twitter. I don't see Jagmeet doing the same. He needs to start doing so. The NDP should also use their presence in the minority parliament to try and bring back the "per vote subsidy". A per vote yearly subsidy of $1.50 would bring over $4M into the NDP's bank account every single year which would likely wipe out their debt and instantly make them more financially competitive.

7) Re-think your approach in Quebec, especially Bill 21. As is probably now obvious in hindsight, the NDP's strategy on Bill 21 was a mistake, not just morally but also politically. It did nothing to win seats in Quebec. The party ended with 10.7% of the vote and 1 seat. Polls show 35% of Quebecers disapprove of Bill 21. Being the only party with a strong anti Bill 21 stance would have almost certainly resulted in winning more than 10.7% of the vote in Quebec, regardless of what Jagmeet's Quebec caucus might have unwisely told him before the election. Opposing Bill 21 would have helped in Quebec and it would have helped in the rest of Canada as well, especially among visible minorities. Jagmeet needs to find a way to outflank the Liberals on Bill 21 which would likely involve explicitly admitting that his prior stance was wrong and that it was a letdown to many people. He needs to commit to a stance that the federal government will use every tool in its toolkit to fight the law as it would do so any time that a provincial government uses the notwithstanding clause to trample human rights. A left-wing provincial party, Quebec Solidaire, vehemently opposes Bill 21. They have 10 seats in the Quebec National Assembly. The NDP should build stronger ties with them. The NDP will not suddenly shoot up to 30 or 40% in Quebec in the next election. Steady and slow growth and coalition-building with left-wing Quebecers is the only approach available right now. A 15% showing in Quebec in the next election could increase the NDP's Quebec caucus from 1 to 5 or more. The NDP needs to focus in on Quebec-specific issues. I remember Stephen Harper campaigning about keeping an airport open in Quebec when he was Opposition Leader. Jagmeet should go to Quebec often and champion local issues in those 5-10 ridings that could potentially swing back to the NDP next time under more favourable conditions. As he's done in the past, he needs to continually define himself as the only true progressive option for left-wing Quebecers (of which there are many).

Everything Jagmeet does from now until 2023 (when I expect the next election to be) has to be about doubling (or better) the size of his caucus. With the right preparation combined with Jagmeet's ability as an excellent campaigner, he would certainly put himself in a better position to accomplish that next time.

How Jagmeet Singh can become Prime Minister

You might not believe it, but Jagmeet Singh, a Sikh who wears his kirpan on top, might actually become Canada's Prime Minister some day and maybe even sooner rather than later. It almost goes without saying that this would be a huge moment for the Sikh community across the world (although most Sikhs don't seem to appreciate this) and also for the message of pluralism and diversity more generally (when it's being attacked quite aggressively right now by empowered white nationalists in Europe and North America). It was inspiring when Justin Trudeau appointed four Sikh cabinet ministers (among other minorities) in 2015 but Jagmeet as Prime Minister would be a game-changer far above and beyond that. He would instantly become a global phenomenon and would be the perfect pushback to the rising tide of white nationalism. Winning the leadership seems quite plausible at this point although most people are quick to dismiss Jagmeet's chances in the general election in 2019. It's really hard to predict what might happen but in this post I'm going to lay out a number of reasons for why I think Jagmeet has a real path to victory in 2019 and beyond.

1) Ultimately, it comes down to Math. The Math is not insurmountable. The House of Commons has 338 seats. Depending on the outcome of post-election machinations in a minority government, the NDP only needs to win slightly over a third of those seats assuming the seat counts for the Liberals and the Conservatives are roughly similar. Meaning the NDP could win with as few as 120-130 seats assuming around 100-110 seats each for the Liberals and Conservatives and a small handful of seats for other parties (Green, BQ). It might ultimately take more than one election to leapfrog the other parties' seat counts due to a) incumbency, b) establishing a level of comfort and familiarity with the electorate and c) establishing a beachhead of support in certain urban and suburban ridings that are not used to voting NDP but it's possible to grow from an existing base of 44 seats up to 120-130 seats in 1 or 2 election cycles with the right message and strategy. The reason I think it might take more than 1 election cycle is because many voters take time to break out of existing habits (eg. not ever previously voting for the NDP federally). 

2) A growing proportion of Canadians are visible minorities. Jagmeet will speak to them. The proportion of these non-white Canadians is about one quarter. The NDP does not traditionally do very well with visible minorities. If visible minorities make up 25% of the electorate and whites make up 75%, the NDP may get around 5% of its total vote share from minorities (5/25) and the rest from whites (10-15/75).  Jagmeet can increase the minority share from 5/25 to over 10/25 due to his popularity with South Asians, Muslims and others. If Jagmeet can get 12/25 among nonwhites and maintain 15/75 among whites, that puts the NDP at a very healthy 27% of the popular vote, just a few points shy of what they would need to win. This is doable. By doing better with visible minorities, Jagmeet can increase the NDP's currently miserable seat count in Ontario (8 seats) by a considerable amount (30+). 

3) The Trump Factor is likely to be very helpful to Jagmeet. Most Canadians find Donald Trump extremely distasteful. Justin Trudeau has done a good job of branding himself as the anti-Trump but no one is going to symbolize anti-Trump more than a bearded man with a turban. Canadians don't have the luxury of voting out Trump in 2020 but they do have the option of sending an emphatically anti-Trump/anti-Racism message in 2019 by voting for Jagmeet. 

4) Quebec politics are re-aligning. So you might ask, what about Quebec? Aren't they racist or at the least, skeptical of Jagmeet's supposedly overt religiosity? Maybe but as Chantal Hébert noted in her column yesterday, Quebec politics are re-aligning from a federalist-sovereigntist axis to a left-right axis. Considering that the Bloc Québécois is fading away due to this shift in Quebec politics, the new left-right axis will benefit the NDP in the long-term. Quebec's politics already lean-leftward compared to the rest of the country and with a compelling enough platform, Jagmeet can make a case to have Quebecers vote for his proposals rather than his race or religion. Ultimately, the Liberals have not fundamentally altered the status quo in Canada in a major way. The NDP can do that with free university tuition, a national childcare program, dental care, pharmacare among other proposals. This can be compelling stuff to socially-democratic minded Quebecers if Jagmeet puts forward an ambitious (albeit potentially unfeasible) agenda. Many voters shift between the NDP and the Liberals. Having an aggressively left wing platform will likely do a great deal to pry left wing voters away from the Liberals and into the hands of the NDP, particularly in Quebec. 

5) Jagmeet will catch people's attention including the media's. Jagmeet is going to stand out. He will have almost universal name recognition by the time of the next election. Tom Mulcair couldn't say the same for himself. Name ID is incredibly important since most voters tune out politics a majority of the time but if Jagmeet can make himself recognizable and attractive to low-information voters, he can unlock a huge chunk of the electorate for the NDP. 

6) The NDP has a good bench of talent. Jagmeet has a lot of good options to choose from when assembling his shadow cabinet. These include his three opponents in the leadership race (Niki Ashton and Guy Caron could make a good deputy leader combination) among several other impressive NDP MPs. There are also several dozen recently defeated MPs who can run again for the NDP in 2019. 

For the above reasons I think Jagmeet has a better shot than many realize at becoming Prime Minister. Although it all starts with him becoming leader next month... 

Panthic Unity 2017

With the Sarbat Khalsa process increasingly lacking credibility and controlled by political actors with narrow agendas, the likelihood of it yielding positive results for the Panth is diminishing.

So maybe progress can come from within the existing power centre (the SGPC)?

Given the Badal party's likely impending defeat in the upcoming Punjab Assembly elections though, there is still hope that progress can come from within the SGPC, given the new President's stated desire for a reconciliation with Panthic groups. This would happen if Badal's defeat was followed by SGPC members showing independence from his control.

Just a few days ago, the new President of the SGPC expressed his hope for achieving greater Panthic Unity, claiming that it is a top priority. He's also seeming to make efforts to do some good things.

Now, even a well-intentioned President of the SGPC is restricted from fully acting on his or her well intentions due to external factors but there are a number of things he or she could do to improve Panthic Chardi Kala if their intentions were sincere.

Below are some steps that can be taken by the SGPC President, if he was willing to make them for the greater Panthic good:

1) Reconcile with the Akal Takht Punj Pyareh who were "fired" last year from their posts. Reinstate them and seek their input and consensus on major Panthic decision-making. There have already been rumours that this might be in the works.

2) Appoint an entirely new set of Takht Jathedaars in consultation with the "fired" Akal Takht Punj Pyareh (even though Patna Sahib and Hazur Sahib are out of the "jurisdiction" of the SGPC, a full new slate of Jathedaars should be announced anyway). The Jathedaar of Akal Takht can potentially be Bhai Pinderpal Singh given his wide respect within different Panthic groups. The rest of the Takht Jathedaars should also be respected figures across the Khalsa Panth. 

3) In coordination and consultation with the new Takht Jathedaars, set up procedures to create a "firewall" between politicians of the Indian state and the SGPC/Takht Jathedaars. This should mean no political parties can be involved in SGPC elections and that the Chief Minister or other "Akali Leaders" cannot meddle in Panthic affairs due to the perception that they are interfering to boost their political hopes. Attempting to meddle in Panthic affairs should result in their automatic excommunication from the Panth. Our biggest Panthic crisis right now is the crisis of confidence in the integrity and impartiality of our Panthic institutions. This needs to be restored by keeping Punjabi and Indian politicians away from co-opting Panthic institutions for their own good. 

4) The practice of giving Siropas at Darbar Sahib or Akal Takht Sahib to visiting politicians including the Prime Minister of India and others should be immediately ended. Siropas should be given exclusively for Sevaa to the Panth. Politicians, even if they are hypothetically Sevaadaars of the Panth as well, should be excluded from consideration from Siropas to avoid the perception that the Panth is beneath them or trying to curry favour with them.

5) Formalize a way to seek the input and involvement of Sikhs living outside Punjab in Panthic Affairs. 

Panthic Soch

Sometimes a particular Gursikh can make an observation regarding another particular Gursikh that they possess "Panthic Soch". Based off of hearing these observations, I wanted to write a short post regarding what I think are some of the ingredients that make up "Panthic Soch" (Panthic Thinking). I am writing this post mostly for my own purposes as my level of Panthic Soch fluctuates from time to time and year to year.

1) Panthic Agenda above group agendas. It is completely okay to be affiliated with a particular group or Jathebandi. In fact, when I hear Gursikhs complimenting other Gursikhs on their "Panthic Soch" it is usually because they both belong to a group and yet somehow transcend that group. Belonging to a group should not interfere with being aware of what is best for the Panth-at-large. This means sometimes being willing to hide credit for your group's accomplishments and crediting those accomplishments instead to the Panth-at-large. This means knowing when the Panth needs your group to come together with others instead of always insisting on being separate. A particular group atmosphere might be completely serene and a gathering of Gursikhs from different backgrounds might be somewhat chaotic but there's something special about the latter as well. Sometimes it's necessary to put your group to the side and come together for the greater good of Panthic Chardi Kala. This also means ensuring the unity within particular groups as well. If we cannot ensure the unity of Jathebandis how can we possibly work towards the unity of the Panth?

2) No superiority complex with regards to other Gursikhs. You might believe that your Jathebandi or interpretation of Sikhi has really figured something out that has escaped the majority of other Sikhs but be a little humble with that belief. We do not have avasthaa or spirituality meters. The simple grandmother at the Gurdwara who has no group affiliations who is doing bhaandiyaa dee sevaa with love for the sangat might have more blessings from Guru Sahib than the most well-connected people in your group. The fact is that Gursikhs with no group affiliations or other group affiliations might have figured out some things that we haven't. Sikhi is an ocean and we shouldn't assert our superiority over others when we should be focusing on our own practice first. Finally it is important to sometimes overlook the faults of others to preserve unity. I recall a Saakhi of a Sikh of Guru Nanak Dev Ji who had a house guest who posed as a Sikh but actually stole the Sikh's possessions and tried to escape. The Sikh realized that the house guest was a fraud but did not even tell his own wife so no one would think badly of the individual who posed as a Sikh even though he wasn't actually a real Sikh. Point being, we should be forgiving of others and do our best to overlook the faults of other Sikhs. 

3) No desire to enforce one's beliefs or group agenda on others. Sometimes, particular Gursikhs are eager to enforce their beliefs on the sangat. Enforcing one's beliefs/maryada is fine in a group setting but is not the best idea in a more Panthic setting (such as a large Gurdwara where the entire sangat is attending). I remember once, there was a saanjhaa (collective) program organized and a youth with the AKJ insisted that all keertanees at the program should wear keski or otherwise he wouldn't want to attend. This was clearly against the spirit of the collective program because it was a desire to enforce the AKJ group ideology on others. Similarly, other youth may have a desire to enforce their interpretations of Bani length on others which is also not the best approach. 

4) Relations with Gursikhs from different backgrounds. It's disheartening to me when someone from a particular group has friends only from that group. I would say to make the effort to have friends from Jathebandis that are not your own. This also helps you avoid "othering" Gursikhs from those beliefs or backgrounds. There are other benefits too. It creates links that can foster communication and open dialogue between those groups. It can help teach you about different elements of Sikhi that you might not have been exposed to earlier. 

5) Committing yourself to the Sangat. In general, most Sikhs like to live as lone rangers. Sangat is a sporadic part of their lives at best. It is not a routine. It should be a routine. Everyone should be connected to a Sangat. There should be routine parts of the week where you go into sangat and participate in that sangat and sacrifice yourself, your sleep, your carefree life, for the benefit of building a sangat that is special. This can be a keertan program or a weekly youth darbar or some other form of Sangat. Every Sikh needs to build a love for Sangat within themselves and unless you have that love for Sangat within you, it would be hard to have Panthic Soch. 

6) Believing in Freedom. You can't be Panthic if you don't believe in freedom. Freedom for the Panth from Indian politicians. Freedom for all humans from slavery and injustice. Someone with Panthic Soch is someone who has a strong aversion to injustice and someone who is part of the struggle to defeat it. 

A Unity Agenda (for the USA)

As the US election wraps up, I, like most other Canadians, am pulling for a Hillary Clinton victory. I am hopeful that she will win although it seems inevitable that Republicans will still control at least one branch of government (the House of Representatives) after the election. This could be seen as a restriction but Clinton should see it as a blessing in disguise and act accordingly.

I am mostly a centrist nowadays and my preference would be for Clinton to govern as one. I think she has an amazing opportunity to heal the country by being a unifying figure if she undertakes the right steps. This would be good for America and also good for the world as the world needs America to be a role model mature democracy rather than the joke and laughingstock that Trump has portrayed it to be to the world.

So what could Hillary Clinton do to help heal and unify her country?

1) Convince Mitt Romney to be her Secretary of State. Mitt Romney is the head of the "sane wing" of the Republican Party. He resisted Donald Trump throughout the primary process and has been outspoken in his criticism of Trump since then as well.

He was a good governor of Massachusetts, was a successful businessman and is a man of high moral character. He is a sharp thinker on policy including foreign policy and largely predicted Russia's slide towards rogue state status during the 2012 election. He may be wrong on certain issues as well but I would chalk up most of his past misguided statements on trying to appease the grievance/ignorance wing of the Republican base and so I don't think any such statements should be held too strongly against him. The pressures to appease the Republican base in trying to become their nominee are strong and I don't judge him for that.

There would certainly be resistance from within Clinton's own party in selecting such a prominent Republican for such a prominent position. Many Democrats may be clamouring for Joe Biden or some other senior Democrat to take the position. This would be a missed opportunity. Mitt Romney is a largely respected figure and elder statesman. He is a patriotic American and so would serve Clinton loyally if he assumed the position and would also constrain his public statements and policy ambitions to suit the President he is serving.

2) Convince Jeb Bush to be her Secretary of Education. There is a long tradition of Presidents selecting at least one member of the opposing party to sit in their cabinet. It has usually been a token selection. Even when Obama had Robert Gates as Defense Secretary in his cabinet, it wasn't a political risky decision as Robert Gates had no history in elected politics. This is why I think Clinton should seek to appoint two Republicans to her cabinet, in two prominent positions and that those two Republicans should be politicians with wide name recognition. Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney would suit those criteria easily.

Jeb Bush has been a leading policy thinker and advocate for improving the US education system for years. Many of his ideas may not jive with Hillary Clinton and her base but he could still be Education Secretary nonetheless. There's nothing wrong with some Republican ideas being implemented by a Democratic President (through a Republican Secretary) and there's nothing stopping Clinton from constraining Bush to focus on areas of improvement that are more bipartisan in nature.

Having two prominent Republicans (both of whom were stridently anti-Trump) in her cabinet would go a long way to show Americans that she is trying to govern in a unifying way.

3) Convince a Trump supporter such as Newt Gingrich to join her Administration. Convincing Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush to join her administration would be huge achievements but both individuals opposed their nominee, Donald Trump. It would be wise to find an opportunity to bring a prominent Trump supporter into her administration somehow. Newt Gingrich would be the least bad option in this area.

He has worked with Hillary Clinton on the past on electronic health records and although he has assumed very harsh rhetoric towards Clinton in the past few months (suggesting she is a criminal, etc.), it is safe to assume that this is more politically motivated due to his Trump support rather than a deeply-held conviction.

Having Newt inside the administration may help some of the die-hard Trump supporters also feel that they have a voice in government. One of Gingrich's top priorities during his 2012 presidential run was to improve the functioning of government departments using the management technique "Lean Six Sigma". Perhaps Clinton could appoint Gingrich as a "Czar" in charge of making government departments operate more efficiently and effectively using better management strategies.

While this would be risky, it's important to have all Americans feel as if they have a voice in government and it would still allow Clinton to keep the vast majority of appointments in Democratic hands.

4) Horse trading to achieve legislative policy goals. With a Republican house, it would be exceedingly difficult to achieve significant policy goals that require legislative action.

So what is a way around this? In my opinion, the solution is to let the Republicans have legislative victories as well. For example, in return for an increase in the Minimum Wage to $12 an hour, Republicans would also receive a policy victory in return (such as tax reform, some regulatory reform or anything else that could be comparable).

In order to achieve legislative victories in this manner, it would be important for Clinton to be very explicit about what she's doing. She could use her Vice President's contacts in Congress to bring a handful of Republicans on board with such a proposal (eg. Minimum Wage increase in return for a Republican policy victory on another issue) and then hold a press conference with those Republicans advocating for the trade in question. Or alternatively, she could go to Republican leadership with the proposal and negotiate with them directly.

With a divided government, policy trades are the most realistic way to avoid gridlock. They would restore the faith of citizens in their government's ability to operate and many of the bills passed in this manner would also have a positive policy impact.

Is much of this going to happen? Probably not, which is unfortunate. Right now, the biggest problem facing America is the sense that its system of government is broken; that it is too polarized and unable to function properly. Focusing on unity and getting past gridlock would be the most important things Clinton could do to get her country back on the right track.

A Platform for the SGPC Elections

Sometime soon, something very important will be happening in the Panth when the SGPC elections are finally called.

It's more than clear that people are fed up with the status quo as it relates to the running of our Panthic affairs via the SGPC. However, defeat for the incumbents (those affiliated with the Badal-run Akali Dal) is still far from certain. The Badal party members who are currently in control have a dependable vote bank in the form of various "Sants" who are members of the Sant Samaj.

In order for a Panthic opposition to emerge victorious, it will require the presence of a number of factors:

1) There will need to be a unified opposition.
2) That opposition will need to be well-financed
3) The opposition will need to representative of the diversity of the Panth (age, gender, Jathebandi, etc.)
4) Most of all, that opposition must have a unifying message that resonates with all different types of Sikhs. This will require putting forward a message that is clear, concrete and visionary.

With victory in the SGPC elections, many important and much-needed changes for the Panth can be finally moved forward. For example, the SGPC currently controls the selection of the Jathedar of Akal Takht (along with the Jathedars of Keshgarh Sahib and Damdama Sahib). Having an Akal Takht Jathedar who was a true servant/leader of the Panth is a dream and constant ardaas for millions of Sikhs.

Ultimately, everything is possible with Guru Sahib's Kirpa and in order to receive Guru Sahib's Kirpa, it is necessary to put forward a message and a platform that is in line with Gurmat. That which is wrong with the current system and way of doing things must be identified and there must be a clear promise to root it out. In my opinion, having a watered-down or detail-lacking platform will not result in Guru Sahib's Kirpa and victory will be unlikely in those circumstances.

Here are a number of items which, in my opinion, a Panthic slate should promise to implement if they are victorious in the SGPC elections.

1) The SGPC shall put an end to systemic discrimination on the basis of gender at Harmandir Sahib and all other historical Gurdwaras. eg. Kirtan Seva among other sevas.
2) Selection of Jathedars shall be based on merit and individuals shall not be selected who lack the qualifications necessary to carry out the Sevaa. Well-known Panthic personalities who have a good jeevan and who are engaged in parchaar shall be selected. (I would even go further and name potential individuals that meet these criteria such as Bhai Pinderpal Singh).
3) There will be an intense and comprehensive independent audit of the SGPC, not just financial but also in terms of the efficiency of its operations. Redundancies shall be eliminated and excess funds will be directed towards Dharam Parchaar.
4) The Dharam Parchaar committee of the SGPC shall train and hire at least 100 full-time parchaariks who speak various languages to do parchaar of Sikhi throughout the world inside and outside of Gurdwaras. Bhai Jagraj Singh from Basics of Sikhi should be drafted in to guide this parchaar strategy. Modern tools of parchaar shall also be financed such as campsites.
5) For the selection of Panthic Jathedaars, the SGPC shall ultimately cede its jurisdiction in this area to another body that represents not only Punjabi Sikhs but also Sikhs from outside Punjab and around the world (a true Sarbat Khalsa).

A Minimally Acceptable Sarbat Khalsa

Many Panthic Gursikhs are moving forward with plans for organizing another Sarbat Khalsa later this year. In hindsight it has become sadly clear that more will need to be done to inspire confidence in the Sarbat Khalsa process. The last Sarbat Khalsa's defects included: a lack of transparency, a lack of representation, the inability for common Sikhs to have their voices heard, among many other issues. All of these defects, put together, made the Sarbat Khalsa an almost self-defeating task. Its organizers wanted progress in the Panth but the defects in its organization only served to undermine the event's goals, most of which were obviously positive for the Panth. Shortly after the Sarbat Khalsa, the Jathedars that were selected were arrested and there was no major outpouring of outrage from the community. This was because most common Sikhs saw the event for what it was: driven by political self-interest and not even bothering to reflect the will of the Khalsa Panth in any meaningful or proper way.

So how can a Sarbat Khalsa be organized that will be legitimate in the eyes of common Sikhs? I've already laid out a proposal a few weeks ago. This involved creating geographic zones, coming up with a checklist for representatives to the Sarbat Khalsa and finally for a Sarbat Khalsa Punj Pyareh to oversee the selection of representatives from each of the zones.

Honestly, I think that is unlikely to happen. It seems as if there is simply a lack of vision and know-how to execute this kind of system, especially now given the time constraints in place. So instead, I want to offer a more minimalistic approach to how I think a Sarbat Khalsa can still be pulled off in a way that is practical and yet still legitimate enough that it could lead to positive changes for the Panth, moving forward.

Before any of that though, I think it has to be clear who the "organizing committee" of the Sarbat Khalsa is. Before a Sarbat Khalsa can be organized, it has to be obvious who the organizers are. Who is responsible for convincing "Panthic Leaders" to show up? Who is responsible for compiling resolutions, managing proceedings and so on and so forth? This seems like such an obvious issue but I think the question of who the organizers are needs more clarity. The identity of the organizers should be obvious to the entire Panth, if only so we know who can be held accountable for the event's successes and failures.

So here are my suggestions for the organizers of the Sarbat Khalsa, whomever they may be:

1) Taking it seriously when you call yourself "Guru Panth Da Daas".

It is common for Panthic leaders and politicians to claim to be "daas" or servant of the Guru Khalsa Panth. Few seem to act like it in a genuine way. If a Sarbat Khalsa is going to be executed successfully, I think it requires a group of organizers who genuinely feel as if they are the servants of the Khalsa Panth and of each and every Gursikh.

This means that the organizers of the Sarbat Khalsa should be constantly open to constructive criticism and feedback. They should be willing to implement positive feedback as they receive it. They should know that the Sarbat Khalsa does not belong to them but rather to the entire Panth. They are simply its temporary custodians.

2) Inspiration from Shabad Guru.

Harinder Singh (formerly from SikhRi) had a really spot-on criticism of the Sarbat Khalsa process. He was a part of the deliberations and noted that there was no Sikhi presence in the discussions surrounding the Sarbat Khalsa. For example, there was no ardaas before meetings. No reading of Gurbani before beginning deliberations. There was no use of Gurbani, Sikh History, Sikh Rehit Maryada, etc. to support one's opinions.

The whole underlying idea behind the Sarbat Khalsa is that the Badal group is divorced from genuine Sikhi. How can this criticism stand when those who want to replace the Badal-order can't even bother to support their opinions with Gurbani?

3) Accepting proposed resolutions from the Global Sikh population.

This is important. A mailing address and an e-mail address should be set up and Sikhs from around the world should be able to send their proposed resolutions. This would be easy to set up and it wouldn't even be that difficult for a Sevadar to spend some time and compile a list of the different proposed resolutions. Similar-ish resolutions could be grouped together and a tally could be kept of how often that type of resolution was proposed.

This would be a solid starting-off-point for when the "important" decision-making types show up in November.

4) Transparency.

This item flows from point 1 but if someone feels as if they are Guru Panth Da Daas, then they would naturally be transparent with their master.

Even until today it seems as if no one has bothered to be transparent about last November's Sarbat Khalsa. Where is the list of organizers? Where is the list of decision-makers?

5) All deliberations should be minuted and recorded.

Everything should be minuted so that the sangat could have an understanding of what transpired behind closed doors. Everything should be video-recorded as well just in case.

There are strong reasons to keep things more confidential and private. There is the ever-present issue of government harassment and intimidation. Someone may feel uncomfortable expressing an unpopular (but maybe correct) opinion if all deliberations are going to be made public.

However, I think, on balance, there are stronger reasons to decide in favour of transparency. There is currently a massive deficit of trust in our Panthic leaders and institutions. This would go some way to demystifying the decision-making process and would lead to more trust in the people who are making the decisions and their motivations.

6) Speakers should be the same as decision-makers.

Last November, there were many discussions ongoing behind closed doors. There was also a parade of speakers who spoke on the live-feed of the Sarbat Khalsa. Most of the speakers had no actual participation in the decision-making behind the scenes. This time, the list of speakers and the list of decision-makers should be one and the same. Every decision-maker should present themselves to the Sangat and explain their priorities, their vision and their dreams for the Panth. This would give the speeches an actual purpose rather than being a quite lame ritual like it was last time.

7) The organizers should actively explain their decision-making regarding issues of representation

For me, this is one of the most important issues. The organizers' main job, in my opinion, is to bring together a representative collection of the global Sikh community. In order to hold the organizers to task for this important role, they should actively explain their efforts in this regard both before and after the Sarbat Khalsa.

They should write a letter explaining their efforts in convincing representatives from all groups and schools of thought to show up. For those who declined to participate at the Sarbat Khalsa, they should also explain why those people did not show up and which efforts were made to persuade them. I think this would be quite powerful. When Dhadhriawale did not show up at the last Sarbat Khalsa, the reasons were largely shrouded in mystery. This time, if a similar situation arises, the organizers should explain what efforts were made to contact Dhadhriawale and furthermore, what efforts were made to listen to his concerns and address them.

At the end of the day, it is the job of the Sarbat Khalsa organizers to explain how they tried to bring together a representative group of Gursikhs to have a discussion about the future of the Panth. If there is enough transparency in the process, I would like to believe that the end result would be far more legitimate instead of coming across as a rigged process that was illegitimate from the outset.