FAQ of the Freedom Team

This draft document is work-in-progress

Question 2: Why is FTI insisting on 300 seats as a goal, and not aiming in a step-wise manner?

What makes us think FTI can get 300 seats in Parliament?

It has been stated that save Rajiv Gandhi's election victory after the tragic assassination of PM Indira Gandhi, no party has managed this feat in India. (Actually, this has happened before, eg. in 1951, INC won 364 seats (see  p. 50 here)).

Suggestion: It has therefore been suggested that FTI aim for making a measurable difference...a number closer to 50 than 300.

The problem is that 50 seats makes no difference to policy. The Swatantra Party of Rajaji had 44 seats in the Fourth Lok Sabha (1967-71). It could make no measurable difference to India despite standing for almost the same policies that FTI stands for. A comprehensive majority is needed in order to make a difference.

But more important, FTI will not wait “to launch as a formal party before we find 300 winning candidates” – FTI should wait to launch as soon as 550 solid candidates are found to launch simultaneously – whether they win or not. That they win 300 seats is a goal, not a certainty. It may take two rounds of such 550 candidates to get 300 seats and to make a difference.

Aiming for 50 seats will be fatal to FTI’s objectives in two ways. Not only will it not generate momentum and generate adequate resources, it will end up giving 10-20 seats since (at best) people generally don’t vote for ‘small parties with limited ambition to run the country’s government.

Suggestion: Good, visible results and impact of these 50 candidates can then provide impetus to field the next 50 candidates (say in adjoining constituencies and so on). This approach ("a hub and spoke" approach) may take many decades to get us to the magic number of 300 but I believe it is far more practical than trying to win 300 seats at once.

This is not advisable because each time an election is contested, Rs. 25 lakhs is spent. If a seat is not earned it is largely wasted. It is better to spend the money when the ground work to get elected has been done and there is a serious chance of making a difference. Second, if people are willing to spend decades before they make a difference, what is the harm in spending 3 years in solid coordinated effort in order to launch 550 candidates?

(Previous response)

FTI should not aim less than 300 seats. Members who are happy with smaller steps to test the waters are most welcome to aspire to and to deliver such steps– keeping in mind that each time one contests, at least Rs. 25 lakhs is squandered unless it results in a seat – which, though, is not going to result in any major reforms. FTI neither supports nor detracts from such efforts (nor can it support, anyway! it has no money at this stage).

FTI will "kick in" and come to life, and demand serious attention and consideration in India, when it is ready to offer 550 high quality candidates united on one policy platform. At that stage its leverage should become sufficient enough (a belief yet to be tested!) to attract Rs. 200 crores of funding from well-wishers. Anything less is unlikely to generate the critical mass and momentum needed either to attract sufficient funding or to implement the reforms needed.

We do ourselves a serious disfavour by thinking, even at the very outset, of less than the total reform of India. Maybe after 10 failed attempts over 50 years we can reduce the focus on 20 or 25 seats, but until we have exhausted all possibilities, let's focus on the big game.

Counter-question: Should we really wait before being confident of winning 300 seats (or fielding 500 candidates) to launch ourselves?

The problem with trying to do a big thing in too many small steps is that each step costs a lot in terms of time. Leaders have a total useful life of 20-30 years. Doing small things and getting 10, 20, or even 50 seats is a sure-shot recipe for mediocrity. An entire life can go by in struggling for these little fish. And at the end one could get totally disillusioned and lose any attraction to the public in general, having become a part of the ‘establishment’.

It can take 2 goes of 550 candidates to get 300 seats. For instance, the first go could yield 40-100 seats, and the next 300. But not trying for all 550 at one go means people won’t vote for these candidates. People vote for national government, not for a ragtag bunch which will get a few seats. Therefore FTI should offer them a clear alternative to form national government each time it contests.

Back to the main FAQ